'Network Neutrality'? Never Mind.

Someone has to pay to keep traffic speedy.

By

L. Gordon Crovitz

Updated Dec. 22, 2008 12:01 a.m. ET

The late Gilda Radner used to play a character on "Saturday Night Live," Emily Litella, who delivered agitated commentaries. Partway through, it would become clear that the elderly woman had misunderstood the issue. For example: "What is all this fuss I hear about the Supreme Court decision on a 'deaf' penalty? It's terrible! Deaf people have enough problems as it is!" When the news anchor explained that it was the death penalty, she would shrug, "Oh, that's very different. Never mind."

We just had a never-mind moment on the most controversial public-policy issue relating to the Web: network neutrality. The moment built in response to a page-one story in this newspaper last Monday detailing how Google was negotiating with Internet service providers to deliver its more bandwidth-demanding content, such as YouTube videos, more quickly. Google has long backed network neutrality, whose proponents typically argue that all Internet traffic on a network should be delivered at the same speed and reliability.

Google's offer was to accelerate access to its own content by co-locating its computer servers in the physical facilities of broadband providers. This would seem to violate the principle of network neutrality, at least as lobbyists have used the phrase. But Google explained that the "caching" of content on its servers would benefit consumers. Bloggers noted that this better management of networks would mean less clogging for access to others' sites as well. Even diehard net-neutrality backers embraced the Google approach. This means there is finally agreement that efficient management of networks on the Web is a good thing.

It's not so funny that it has taken so long to reach this logical conclusion. Regulators treat the Web as if it were a common carrier like a railroad, discouraging efficient network management and pricing. The issue of network neutrality had been so politicized in Washington that it's driven underinvestment. At latest count, the U.S. has fallen so far behind that we're now No. 15 in the world in bandwidth penetration.

President-elect Obama has said he supports "network neutrality," whatever the phrase now means. Networks such as those provided by telecom and cable companies should be able to deliver Web content as quickly and reliably as competitive markets will bear. When the Web was text-based, these issues were straightforward. Now, bandwidth usage is growing by an estimated 50% a year, especially due to online video and real-time applications, such as games and telephone calls, which require no-jitter connections. These services are great for consumers and the companies that offer them, but regulators have not let network management evolve to serve these new needs.

Network managers are not permitted to offer tiered services to providers as a way to allocate increasingly scarce bandwidth. There is the legitimate worry that networks might discriminate, especially if they have their own online offerings. But they should be free to charge different rates for different services so long as they don't discriminate. Transparency is important, but networks do have to be managed. Comcast ran into a buzz saw when it (without disclosure) slowed down a provider of online video so that other Web traffic could move more smoothly.

As the Google case makes clear, the Net is hardly neutral. Why shouldn't Google make deals with Internet access providers to provide "edge caching" technology to deliver its content quickly? Content publishers invest in services like Akamai to ensure that bandwidth-hogging services such as online video are transmitted faster. Amazon arranged a special service through Sprint so that digital books can be downloaded in a quick burst to its Kindle electronic reader. Some companies want to tap the ultrahigh-speed network used by the nation's research laboratories. Those with deep pockets compete in part by providing more reliable service, just as they do in every other medium where business is done.

At one level, the debate about network neutrality reflects the long-running competition in media between those who create content and those who distribute it. This historically pitted movie producers against movie theaters and television studios against cable companies. Internet companies such as Google, Yahoo and Microsoft don't want to have to pay tolls to the companies that provide the Web infrastructure. But someone has to pay to keep the network up to speed.

It's time to let the big boys among the content providers and network providers fight it out to see who pays how much for what level of service. Until they work out a new approach, consumers in the U.S., who once had the best Web experience, will fall further down the Internet ranks.

This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. Distribution and use of this material are governed by our Subscriber Agreement and by copyright law. For non-personal use or to order multiple copies, please contact Dow Jones Reprints at 1-800-843-0008 or visit www.djreprints.com.